Natural disasters can strike quickly and without warning. A quick and well-reasoned response to the emergency situation is critical to preserving life and health. Unfortunately, people may have difficulty reacting quickly under such circumstances; it may even be impossible to observe, let alone analyze, all of the environmental factors necessary to take proper action. Such situations suggest technological solutions.
Shutoff devices for coping with specific local events are well known. For example, a fuse or circuit breaker will disconnect electricity in case of an over-current condition. A gas valve may disconnect a gas line in the event of a sudden pressure drop. A water valve may disconnect a water line in case of a rupture or a flood.
Such devices, although possibly helpful, are generally ill adapted to handling the complex interactions found in a disaster event. They shut-off a single utility in response to a simple fault condition in the utility. However, a disaster situation can be quite complicated and a simple response may in fact make matters worse. For example, when an earthquake strikes a modern building, more people are generally killed indirectly by a subsequent fire or flood than directly by falling debris; a device that shuts off water to prevent flooding caused by ruptured pipes might defeat critical fire safety systems. On the other hand, if a particular site is not threatened by fire or explosion, a device that automatically shuts off a gas line in response to an earthquake will leave site users without heat until properly certified emergency personnel can re-establish the gas connection--likely a low priority during a crisis. Similarly, if a particular site is not threatened by fire or explosion, a breached water pipe that is left uncontrolled may cause flooding; the flood water may increase the chance of electric shock injuries in the area and may even cause portions of the structure to collapse under the increased load.
A number of solutions for shutting-off multiple utilities have been proposed. K. H. Kambouris and Orlando Jerez propose a "Universal Earthquake Safety Valve," in U. S. Pat. No. 5,489,889, granted on Feb. 6, 1996. Alan Y. Flig and Paul Regan propose an "Earthquake Utilities Cut-Off Control System" in U.S. Pat. No. 4,841,287, granted on Jun. 20, 1989. Roderick D. Hogan proposes an "Earthquake Fire Safety System" in U.S. Pat. No. 4,414,994, granted on Nov. 15, 1983. All three solutions are directed to cutting-off multiple utilities to a site in response to a single complex disaster event--for example an earthquake.
The above three proposed solutions arguably protect a site by neutralizing the utility inputs and thereby simplifying the disaster environment so that the utilities cannot exacerbate the disaster. However, such a strategy is regrettably too simple because automatic utility reconnection is not considered.
Automatic utility reconnection might be advantageous in a number of situations. For example, if a particular utility is not a threat to a site, then it might be an important resource in combating the disaster event: water for fire fighting; electricity for lighting; gas for heat.
Also to be considered is that manual utility reconnection is a painstaking process. For a complex site such as an office tower or a condominium complex, manual reconnection can take days. A skilled person must inspect the utility conduit for breaches or other faults. Most often, the person visually examines the conduit and listens for leaks. He may also have to bring test equipment to the site. In contrast, automatic reconnection employing appropriately arranged installed sensors might be better suited to this task.
Some incredibly complicated solutions have also been proposed for protecting a site in the event of a disaster. Paul E. Barbeau proposes a "Fire Crisis Management System" in Canadian patent application No. 2,065,786, filed on Apr. 10, 1992 and claiming priority from U.S. patent application Ser. No. 07/860,888, filed on Mar. 31, 1992. Barbeau suggests that the protected site be modeled so that an expert system can direct appropriate equipment to combat a fire in real time. Unfortunately, this sort of endeavor requires significant modeling effort and computer power and may therefore not be widely practical. It will be noted that Barbeau restricts his teaching to fire disasters and even then is only able to specify a list of general factors to be considered in programming the expert system.
What is needed is an practical system that will in response to a complex disaster stimulus temporarily place all site utility interconnections into a safe state--preferably a shut-off state--in order to stabilize the site, and then proceed to intelligently and safely reconnect the utilities to the site in order to reestablish normalcy.
The present invention is directed to such a system.